Yes, social training is a dumb reason to include humanities (who is to say that humanities students are any better?), but there are reasons why it is a good idea to have at least a couple of compulsory humanities papers per science degree. My reason (personal and specific, I know) is that I have a broad range of interests,and, while I wished to develop a career in science and technology, and have a biomedical degree to show for it, I was also very interested in history, languages, and philosophy. In high school, I was unable to take these, as to get into my require course I had to fill my schedule with maths and science. However, my university course required you to take one non-science paper per year for the first two years (sadly limited to choice, however, as there were many clashes between my science classes and the classes I wanted to take). This way I was able to take basic philosophy and swedish, which, while maybe not directly useful to my career, did help develop me as a person, and give me more to think and talk about in depth than just science.
Riddle me this: why is it that if someone has trouble in math or something, other people who can do it will offer to help, but if someone is socially inept, the immediate reaction is to ostracize the person rather than offering to give them social coaching? I have helped people all my life in technical areas where they needed it, but not one time has anyone made any such offer to me.
My theory as to the reason people don't help socially inept people when they do help with topics like maths or history or whatever, is that it is obvious if you don't know that stuff - there is no way or reason to hide your lack of knowledge. However, when it comes to social situations (speaking from my own past experience now), sometimes while one does know the answer, one is too shy or too afraid of mocking to act correctly. Now that I am (somewhat) more socially capable (it took me a while to build up guts etc), I don't help others who are making the same mistakes, as I know that had someone come up to me and told me what to do, I would have felt patronised and even worse than I did already, because I already knew what to do.
The problem here is, of course, what if the person has no idea what to do and would really appreciate the help?
So - nice people don't like to be patronising, and not-nice people don't care. One solution could be to go up to a nice, somewhat nerdy but socially adept person and ask them to help you - they may know what you are going through but didn't want to hurt your feelings...
The way I see it is that this class, while quite silly, really (especially at a masters level - maybe as a highschool option or something), is just another choice in the broad education options available. If people want to learn how to flirt, they can take this class. If they think it is beneath them or that it is unimportant, they can skip it. Same with maths or science.
I have often wondered about this - what makes a fertilised cell so special, as opposed to, say, a skin cell? Or, if that is too specialised, a stem cell of some sort?
This is a general question to those who believe a single cell is a human - I genuinely would like to know what the difference is.
Who's to say that the papers refuting this research are correct? It seems to be taken for granted that the dissenting papers are correct, and thus the original papers are wrong. It seems likely that the refuting papers may be wrong, or that there are complex situations in which both papers are correct (to differing degrees).
Very true - but it doesn't matter - if the refuting papers are wrong, then there is still the same number of wrong papers out there...
When people can't consider the possibility that someone who disagrees with them might be doing the best he can to do what he thinks is right, you begin to wonder about those people and what they're projecting.
I agree with this as a reason to avoid saying "Bush is a c**k" etc; however, hypothetically, should a person who is doing something "wrong" - even if they think they are doing something "right" - be running the country and have that much power? Sure, they are doing it for the benefit of the nation (they think), but they are ruining many good things about it. I can't think of one good thing the Bush administration has done, and I can think of many bad things (disclaimer: I do not live in America, nor am I a US citizen). So: they may have had the best of intentions, but in my opinion they should definitely *not* be running one of the most powerful countries in the world.
Imagine that you're walking down the street and trip on someone's foot. You're annoyed, right? Now imagine that you realize the person tripped you on purpose, and is laughing. Now you're indigent. Tripping people is wrong! If only tripping people on purpose made them homeless - I can think of a few people I would want to try that on...
One does not have to have a science-based job to be labelled a scientist, in my opinion. If you use your intellect and observation, and perhaps experiment a little and accept other peoples' experiments (as long as they are rigourously carried out), you can be a scientist - even if your actual job is an english teacher, a nanny, or the president. By this definition, we really have no idea as to what the gender proportion is. As a female scientist (yes, with a science degree), I find that the summary did, in fact, have poorly chosen words (I don't think the writer was intentionally sexist).
My guess (I didn't RTFA) is that they did the study in male volunteers, and thus can't comment on females. It has nothing to do with differences between the sexes.
If a Nazi government says it is ok to kill jews, should you go along with it?
Answers to nurembergtrials@thepast.com
This opens a whole conundrum in my mind - i agree both with the parent and the grandparent. I think that to blantantly ignore laws that one doesn't agree with *is* inviting harsher law-breaking - for example vigilanteism or racial hate crimes etc. However, obviously, while it may be safer for the individual to go along with a Nazi government, the "right" thing to do would be to fight it. The question is: who decides what is "right". In *my* mind, one should fight laws in any way possible that are in some way detrimental to human rights, without breaking human rights yourself. However, in the case of copyright law i believe that, while it is an idiotic law beyonf the lifespan of the owner, this is an example of something to fight in a legal manner - i.e. lobbying and/or protesting.
sorry if this is unclearly structured - it is rather early in the morning for me to be able to express myself clearly.
We didn't evolve "better-than": we evolved "different-to". Sure, we are better at some things, but many animals are better than us at other things. wouldn't you want the best of both worlds?
Anyone else remember sitting in high school bio and learning about MRS GREN (Movement; Respiration; Sensitivity; Growth; Reproduction; Excretion; Nutrition)? By this definition of life, a virus would not be considered.
People make it seem like life and all these problems suddenly sprung into action. People grew up and dealt with these problem before. They should be able to do so still.. or are people devolving?
Or perhaps they could be evolving? Just because people managed well enough in the past does not mean that it was better then, or that there is nothing that needs fixing. This is similar to saying "I didn't need computers when I grew up - why should people need them now? Are we devolving?".
I personally think that the schools need to do something. However, I agree with the education side of the argument, rather than the punishment - try to teach the bullies a little humanity.
... is that it is not saying "even the average woman should be able to beat it", it is just saying "women", thus implying it would be amazing that any woman could beat something like it. It is the language used more than the general idea, IMHO. I am definitely willing to concede that the average man is stronger than the average woman, but implying (as I believe this quote was) that all women are weak is a tad offensive.
The way my ex and I were planning on doing it was to both dump all our earnings into the joint acct, then each take 10% of the total for our own "individual" spending, leaving 80% for rent, bills, savings, household things etc. This way we would have been able to buy each other presents without the other one knowing exactly how much we spent, go out with friends and not worry about going into joint money, etc. And we would both have the same amount of money, so no unfairness.
We never got around to trying it before we broke up, but I think in theory it seemed good...
We live in a pretty free society. You have the right to wear anything you want, subject to decency laws of the area/society of course. As soon as you step out into public, you should realise that the freedom to wear what you want, also has consequences. If you wear short skirts, you're going to get hit on, and most likely pretty aggressively. That's a consequence of what you wear.
What you wear will affect how people treat you. You can wear almost anything you want, but you should know that it will affect others. If you dress up attractively, then expect to be attracted to. Isn't this just common sense?
If the attention of others curtails your freedom to wear what you want, then welcome to the myth of being free. Perfect freedom is only possible if you do not interact with anyone. We give up freedom as soon as we step outside the door onto the footpath.
I'm not saying that badly behaved guys shouldn't be responsibile for a bad situation. I'm just weary of girls who complain about bad attention, when they're attracting them like magnets with what they wear.
This is all true - I realise that what I wear has an effect on others, and that short skirts are designed to be attracted to. My point wasn't against that - it was against the arguement that bad attention is the fault of the girl's clothes - as an extreme example: "wear a short skirt and don't come crying to me when you are raped". Also that the girl should have to be the one to leave in a bad situation. Anyway - as you say - back to topic...
If a girl's in an environment where it goes beyond a few lewd comments she should get out.
You realise this statement is tantamount to saying "Girls shouldn't wear short skirts"? It is basically putting the responsibility of the situation on the girl's head, rather than the asshole who is coming on way too strong, or worse. Girls often (myself included) want to just "be" without having to worry about what to wear or having to leave someplace where we want to be just to avoid a situation that we didn't even start. And, as a previous poster has mentioned, it is pretty hard to get out if it is her workplace.
Here, if you are arrested (i.e. commit an arrestable offence and are caught) they can take your fingerprints and DNA and photo: permanetly. It is *not* deleted if they don't charge you or you are found not guilty.
When I worked in a forensics lab in England in 2003, the DNA was destroyed and the DNA fingerprint deleted from files if they didn't charge you or you weren't guilty. Admittedly, this was 3 years ago and the laws may have changed since then, but just thought I would throw that into the discussion.
So what is Play-Doh made of, you may ask? It goes without saying that the top secret formula is a closely guarded secret, so its exact ingredients and their proportions are not known to the average person. However, it is known to contain, among other things, wheat flour, water, salt, and some sort of petroleum distillate.
Sure, the commercial formula may be unknown by the general public, but we always had homemade playdoh that was just as good, and obviously not top-secret... I have the recipe somewhere...
Slashdot Mirror
Easy? You must be new here.
Yes, social training is a dumb reason to include humanities (who is to say that humanities students are any better?), but there are reasons why it is a good idea to have at least a couple of compulsory humanities papers per science degree. My reason (personal and specific, I know) is that I have a broad range of interests,and, while I wished to develop a career in science and technology, and have a biomedical degree to show for it, I was also very interested in history, languages, and philosophy. In high school, I was unable to take these, as to get into my require course I had to fill my schedule with maths and science. However, my university course required you to take one non-science paper per year for the first two years (sadly limited to choice, however, as there were many clashes between my science classes and the classes I wanted to take). This way I was able to take basic philosophy and swedish, which, while maybe not directly useful to my career, did help develop me as a person, and give me more to think and talk about in depth than just science.
Riddle me this: why is it that if someone has trouble in math or something, other people who can do it will offer to help, but if someone is socially inept, the immediate reaction is to ostracize the person rather than offering to give them social coaching? I have helped people all my life in technical areas where they needed it, but not one time has anyone made any such offer to me.
My theory as to the reason people don't help socially inept people when they do help with topics like maths or history or whatever, is that it is obvious if you don't know that stuff - there is no way or reason to hide your lack of knowledge. However, when it comes to social situations (speaking from my own past experience now), sometimes while one does know the answer, one is too shy or too afraid of mocking to act correctly. Now that I am (somewhat) more socially capable (it took me a while to build up guts etc), I don't help others who are making the same mistakes, as I know that had someone come up to me and told me what to do, I would have felt patronised and even worse than I did already, because I already knew what to do.
The problem here is, of course, what if the person has no idea what to do and would really appreciate the help?
So - nice people don't like to be patronising, and not-nice people don't care. One solution could be to go up to a nice, somewhat nerdy but socially adept person and ask them to help you - they may know what you are going through but didn't want to hurt your feelings...
The way I see it is that this class, while quite silly, really (especially at a masters level - maybe as a highschool option or something), is just another choice in the broad education options available. If people want to learn how to flirt, they can take this class. If they think it is beneath them or that it is unimportant, they can skip it. Same with maths or science.
Neither class is compulsory.
I have often wondered about this - what makes a fertilised cell so special, as opposed to, say, a skin cell? Or, if that is too specialised, a stem cell of some sort?
This is a general question to those who believe a single cell is a human - I genuinely would like to know what the difference is.
Who's to say that the papers refuting this research are correct? It seems to be taken for granted that the dissenting papers are correct, and thus the original papers are wrong. It seems likely that the refuting papers may be wrong, or that there are complex situations in which both papers are correct (to differing degrees).
Very true - but it doesn't matter - if the refuting papers are wrong, then there is still the same number of wrong papers out there...
When people can't consider the possibility that someone who disagrees with them might be doing the best he can to do what he thinks is right, you begin to wonder about those people and what they're projecting.
I agree with this as a reason to avoid saying "Bush is a c**k" etc; however, hypothetically, should a person who is doing something "wrong" - even if they think they are doing something "right" - be running the country and have that much power? Sure, they are doing it for the benefit of the nation (they think), but they are ruining many good things about it. I can't think of one good thing the Bush administration has done, and I can think of many bad things (disclaimer: I do not live in America, nor am I a US citizen). So: they may have had the best of intentions, but in my opinion they should definitely *not* be running one of the most powerful countries in the world.
Alas, they were voted in.
Also, no bleeding episodes in my car were followed up by the removal of half the seats in the car or the washing of the inside of my car.
... you didn't clean the blood off? Sounds sticky.
What about prior to 2005?
One does not have to have a science-based job to be labelled a scientist, in my opinion. If you use your intellect and observation, and perhaps experiment a little and accept other peoples' experiments (as long as they are rigourously carried out), you can be a scientist - even if your actual job is an english teacher, a nanny, or the president. By this definition, we really have no idea as to what the gender proportion is. As a female scientist (yes, with a science degree), I find that the summary did, in fact, have poorly chosen words (I don't think the writer was intentionally sexist).
My guess (I didn't RTFA) is that they did the study in male volunteers, and thus can't comment on females. It has nothing to do with differences between the sexes.
This opens a whole conundrum in my mind - i agree both with the parent and the grandparent. I think that to blantantly ignore laws that one doesn't agree with *is* inviting harsher law-breaking - for example vigilanteism or racial hate crimes etc. However, obviously, while it may be safer for the individual to go along with a Nazi government, the "right" thing to do would be to fight it. The question is: who decides what is "right". In *my* mind, one should fight laws in any way possible that are in some way detrimental to human rights, without breaking human rights yourself. However, in the case of copyright law i believe that, while it is an idiotic law beyonf the lifespan of the owner, this is an example of something to fight in a legal manner - i.e. lobbying and/or protesting.
sorry if this is unclearly structured - it is rather early in the morning for me to be able to express myself clearly.
...You're not the only one confused about dating.
Sorry...
We didn't evolve "better-than": we evolved "different-to". Sure, we are better at some things, but many animals are better than us at other things. wouldn't you want the best of both worlds?
Anyone else remember sitting in high school bio and learning about MRS GREN (Movement; Respiration; Sensitivity; Growth; Reproduction; Excretion; Nutrition)? By this definition of life, a virus would not be considered.
Or perhaps they could be evolving? Just because people managed well enough in the past does not mean that it was better then, or that there is nothing that needs fixing. This is similar to saying "I didn't need computers when I grew up - why should people need them now? Are we devolving?".
I personally think that the schools need to do something. However, I agree with the education side of the argument, rather than the punishment - try to teach the bullies a little humanity.
... is that it is not saying "even the average woman should be able to beat it", it is just saying "women", thus implying it would be amazing that any woman could beat something like it. It is the language used more than the general idea, IMHO. I am definitely willing to concede that the average man is stronger than the average woman, but implying (as I believe this quote was) that all women are weak is a tad offensive.
The way my ex and I were planning on doing it was to both dump all our earnings into the joint acct, then each take 10% of the total for our own "individual" spending, leaving 80% for rent, bills, savings, household things etc. This way we would have been able to buy each other presents without the other one knowing exactly how much we spent, go out with friends and not worry about going into joint money, etc. And we would both have the same amount of money, so no unfairness.
We never got around to trying it before we broke up, but I think in theory it seemed good...
We live in a pretty free society. You have the right to wear anything you want, subject to decency laws of the area/society of course. As soon as you step out into public, you should realise that the freedom to wear what you want, also has consequences. If you wear short skirts, you're going to get hit on, and most likely pretty aggressively. That's a consequence of what you wear. What you wear will affect how people treat you. You can wear almost anything you want, but you should know that it will affect others. If you dress up attractively, then expect to be attracted to. Isn't this just common sense? If the attention of others curtails your freedom to wear what you want, then welcome to the myth of being free. Perfect freedom is only possible if you do not interact with anyone. We give up freedom as soon as we step outside the door onto the footpath. I'm not saying that badly behaved guys shouldn't be responsibile for a bad situation. I'm just weary of girls who complain about bad attention, when they're attracting them like magnets with what they wear.
This is all true - I realise that what I wear has an effect on others, and that short skirts are designed to be attracted to. My point wasn't against that - it was against the arguement that bad attention is the fault of the girl's clothes - as an extreme example: "wear a short skirt and don't come crying to me when you are raped". Also that the girl should have to be the one to leave in a bad situation. Anyway - as you say - back to topic...If a girl's in an environment where it goes beyond a few lewd comments she should get out.
You realise this statement is tantamount to saying "Girls shouldn't wear short skirts"? It is basically putting the responsibility of the situation on the girl's head, rather than the asshole who is coming on way too strong, or worse. Girls often (myself included) want to just "be" without having to worry about what to wear or having to leave someplace where we want to be just to avoid a situation that we didn't even start. And, as a previous poster has mentioned, it is pretty hard to get out if it is her workplace.Here, if you are arrested (i.e. commit an arrestable offence and are caught) they can take your fingerprints and DNA and photo: permanetly. It is *not* deleted if they don't charge you or you are found not guilty.
When I worked in a forensics lab in England in 2003, the DNA was destroyed and the DNA fingerprint deleted from files if they didn't charge you or you weren't guilty. Admittedly, this was 3 years ago and the laws may have changed since then, but just thought I would throw that into the discussion.So what is Play-Doh made of, you may ask? It goes without saying that the top secret formula is a closely guarded secret, so its exact ingredients and their proportions are not known to the average person. However, it is known to contain, among other things, wheat flour, water, salt, and some sort of petroleum distillate.
Sure, the commercial formula may be unknown by the general public, but we always had homemade playdoh that was just as good, and obviously not top-secret... I have the recipe somewhere...